Genocide Shouldn't Be Used As A Synonym For Abortion

I don’t enjoy writing about the emotionally-charged abortion issue; regardless of the conversation, neither side wins. But with the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a myriad of poisonous articles are making the rounds; articles employing the word “genocide” in comparison to abortion. I feel compelled to respond.

Genocide is an egregious term that has no place in the comparison to abortion. The very definition of genocide as “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group” negates its legitimacy in anti-abortion tirades.

I can’t think of an instance of any single pro-choice individual or pro-choice group licking their lips and rubbing their hands together saying, “How many babies can we kill today?” To use the word genocide in this debate is overly dramatic and ludicrous. Real genocide is what happened in Armenia, in Germany, in the killing fields of Cambodia, in the Balkans, in Rwanda and most recently, in Sudan with Omar El-Bashir’s exterminations of the Darfurians and the Nuba. There are no deliberately planned exterminations of babies in America.

Even the most ardent pro-choice supporter does not want abortion as a substitute for birth control; although the rabid anti-abortion groups want you to believe that. There is no victory in abortion. Terminating a pregnancy leaves psychological scars that last a lifetime, but it should be a confidential decision left to a woman and her doctor. Certain things should remain private.

I’ve never understood the argument of protecting a fetus, but neglecting the children who’ve already been born. We hear passionate rhetoric about the sanctity of life, but then, we deny little children, the homeless, the chronically ill uninsured and senior citizens the most minimum requirements for survival. If all life is precious then we wouldn’t have the death penalty, correct? The inviolability of life argument cannot be a, b, c, or d; it must be “all of the above.”

2011 was a war against women’s reproductive freedom and it was largely legislated by men. Let’s change genders for a moment. Let’s suppose we tracked the young men who fathered children out of wedlock and created a law mandating a forced vasectomy after their first mistake. And just for some additional effect, let’s make a law that requires every man who chooses a vasectomy to wait forty-eight hours and watch an emotional video with pictures of babies and manipulative music. If that happened, we would see a national hue and cry, a male protest that would rattle the halls of every law-making body in the nation. It seems unreasonable and Draconian when the tables are turned, doesn’t it? There are two parties in the procreation of a human being; why do we only punish the mother?

The Right wants to eliminate Government intrusion, but has no problem with intruding into the health of women. Perhaps that's because 81% of our lawmakers are men.

I won’t even mention the argument that refers to the subject of rape, incest or maternal health because the politicians of the extreme right have proven they don’t care or even consider these. They are woefully short of both sympathy and empathy (and there is a difference between the two). Rick Santorum’s response to rape “make the best of bad situation” reminds me of the Clayton Williams quote from over twenty years ago, “lay back and enjoy it.” Some male attitudes and misconceptions never change do they?

The problem of abortion, unplanned pregnancies, and children born out of wedlock will not be eliminated by shaming, blaming, or legislating other people’s versions of morality. We indirectly set up our young people for failure by the lack of realistic sex education in our schools and homes. The anti-abortion groups demonize effective and compassionate non-profits like Planned Parenthood through distortions and lies that imply they have horns, a tail and a pitchfork in hand. Punish, punish, and punish some more does not work in changing people’s behavior; just ask the millions locked up in prisons. B.F. Skinner’s positive and negative reinforcement theory has limited validity when associated with humans; because after all, we are not pigeons tapping on a bar for food pellets. We must dig deeper into the emotional reasons of unprotected sexual activity and the psychological motivations that underlie our society’s licentious sexual behavior. Without that information, we merely treat the symptoms, not the disease itself; leaving no solutions for the problem of unplanned pregnancies and abortion.

Until that time, we shouldn’t refer to abortion as a deliberate and systematic extermination of babies.

Carol Morgan is a career counselor, writer, speaker, former political candidate and the award winning author of Of Tapestry, Time and Tears, a historical fiction about the 1947 Partition of India. You may follow her on Twitter @CounselorCarol1, on Facebook CarolMorgan1 and her writer’s blog at www.carolmorgan.org

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

You make very good points. I am against abortion because I believe it is a baby from the moment of conception. But cases like rape and incest are very difficult.

I agree with most of what you say, especially about two people being involved, but only one being stigmatized for it.

I'd like to respond in-depth to your post, but I don't think I'm going to have time. The biggest problem with the abortion debate is that both sides spend so much time demonizing each other that no meaningful discussion can take place. Well reasoned, unemotional arguments like yours the exception, sadly. Thank you for posting it.

I don't know if genocide would be synonym for abortion. However, because of the sheer number of abortions since Roe v Wade and one original statement as justification for abortion [ "...the solution to the negro problem..." by the founder of what is now Planned Parenthood, one could say it fits within the definition of genocide.

Further, I can't name a country where its native-white-caucasion population's birth rate is about or below 2.1% (sub-replacement fertily for a developed country); and where abortion is legal on demand. I recently heard a famous TV preacher say that " we are raising more dogs than we are babies". That coupled with the facts that in the US homosexuality is legal (even in the military) and there are other so called alternative life-sytles such as gay-unions ...etc...
in a few short 50-100 years we won't have to worry about abortion or any other problem...there won't be any native-white-caucasions.

It is known in some countries and in some circles as" Gradual Self-Imposed Caucasian Genocide ". So, is Genocide Synonym for Abortion ? I don't know, you be the judge of that.

After reading Charlie's comment I could only shake my head. He evokes the fear of the extinction of caucasions and indicts abortion and homosexuality as culprits.

I'm curious as to Charlies' "solution" to what he preceives as a problem, rather than an evolving demographic. There are many reasons other than the two Charlie mentioned, one being that whites are having fewer children not because of abortion but rather birth control. Choosing to have fewer children or none at all.

Charlies' comment (whether meant to or not) educes the basest of human emotions, the call to arms in the name of race. The fear that the "Other" will out number us an evenualy conquer.

What ever Ms. Sanger may have believed, Planned Parenthood of today does not belive in eugenics in any form. It's name explains it all. It belives in empowering women and families to have children when they choose, not to be subject to the arbitrary winds of nature or misogynism.

I did get a chuckle from his " native-white-caucasions." Considering whites aren't "native" to North America at all but were european transplants reveals a certain fallacy that many whites cling to. That being, America belongs to the white heterosexuals and that the "other" ; blacks, hispanic, asian, gays etc. are here only because we suffer there citizenship.

"The biggest problem with the abortion debate is that both sides spend so much time demonizing each other that no meaningful discussion can take place".

You're so right, Bert!
Isn't this SO true of every political and social-solutions discussion?
And we won't find any solutions to any problems until that reasonable discussion begins. There will some issues we can never agree upon, but there is always common ground we share; we should start first with commonalities and work outward to the periphery (slowly)

Thanks so much for reading and posting.
And to Wazoo and Spencer and Charlie: thank you for posting and discussing also.

"There are no deliberately planned exterminations of babies in America."

When a restaurant opens it's doors everyday it deliberately plans to feed people.
When a newspaper is delivered in the morning, the newspaper company deliberately plans for it to be read.
To say that every morning when abortion clinics open their doors, with all the equipment to murder babies up and running, that they are not "deliberately planning" to kill those babies, is asinine.

I think we need to investigate all the women who have miscarriages every year. We need to be able to determine if they were over-exerting themselves with the goal of producing a miscarriage. Why should we let these women off the hook? Matter of fact, we should also ban contraceptives. If people are going to engage in sex, which as we know is only meant for procreation and serves no other purpose, then they shouldn't be allowed to prevent a pregnancy through condoms, pills, or IUDs. Matter of fact, I think that every couple who decides to engage in sexual intercourse needs to visit with a professional to discuss the harmful effects of the Rhythm method/early withdrawal, as this should not be allowed to occur because it prevents the pregnancy from taking place.

"Until that time, we shouldn’t refer to abortion as a deliberate and systematic extermination of babies."

OK... let's just call it murder, not genocide.

Of course, this all depends on one simple belief: does a human life begin at the zygote stage or only when the baby exits the birth canal, the umbilical cord is cut and the baby begins to breathe on its own?

I clearly stated that if one believes a human life begins with a zygote, as many do, then intentionally terminating that life would be considered murder. Roe v. Wade gave the mother and attending physician carte blanche during the first trimester. Thereafter, the states would be allowed to reasonably regulate abortions and some, such as Maryland, consider it murder.

Maryland criminal law states that people can be charged with murder if they "intend to cause the death of the viable fetus." The law does not define "personhood" and states it is not intended to infringe on a woman's right to have an abortion.

But state law also defines a fetus as "viable" if "there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb."

Whether an abortion, if considered to be murder, might carry with it the possibility of a death penalty depends wholly on the particular state law. But yes .. if all abortions were considered murder because the zygote is defined as a viable human life, then if that state has a death penalty for taking a human life, there should be no distinction whether it is a viable fetus or a 23-year-old who is killed. In fact, most states now enhance the penalty for child murder, but it is strange that taking the life of a late-term viable fetus is not so enhanced.

Fine, that's all I wanted to know. Unfortunately, many who oppose abortion don't want to stop there. There are many, many individuals who want to restrict access to contraceptives, etc.- who use their religious beliefs to basically say that procreation is the only purpose of sex. Screw that. Sex should be between two consenting individuals, contraceptives should be allowed period, and if a woman becomes pregnant due to a failure in contraceptives, she should be able to get an abortion in a reasonable time period.

I wouldn't have one but who am I to judge someone else's decision about there own circumstances. I got pregnant at 13 and had the chance to abort my "fetus" and now he's about to be 25. We suffered through alot of negative comments and actions due to my age and his. My parents were no help to me and I was on my own at 14 yrs. old. I now have 3 children ranging from 25 to 6 and couldn't picture my world without them. I still believe in a person's right to make their own decisions and not judge. Let GOD do that.